Service Law – Appointment – Regular vs. Contractual – Discrimination – Advertisement issued for regular posts of Assistant Professor in Pay Band-III with no mention of contractual appointments – Appellant, fully qualified with Ph.D. and First Class preceding degree, shortlisted and interviewed through the same process as all other candidates – Selection Committee recommended thirteen other candidates for regular appointment while arbitrarily recommending the appellant and one other for contractual appointment at fixed pay of Rs. 40,000/- per month for one year – No reason recorded for differential treatment – Held: Denial of regular appointment patently illegal and unconstitutional – Appellant entitled to regular appointment [Paras 12, 13, 14].

Selection Committee – Scope of Judicial Review – Arbitrary Recommendation – Court acknowledged that in judicial review it does not sit as a court of appeal over views of the Selection Committee – However, the point in issue was not whether reasons recorded were right or untenable, but whether denial of regular appointment against a regular vacancy, after subjecting the appellant to the identical selection process, could be justified at all – Absence of any recorded reason for singular treatment rendered the recommendation unsustainable [Para 13].

Estoppel – Acceptance Under Economic Compulsion – Oral Protest – High Court and Division Bench held that acceptance of contractual appointment without written protest and continued service thereunder barred the appellant from challenging the appointment – Supreme Court disagreed, noting that options for the unemployed are few and acceptance on the assurance of the then Director could not operate as estoppel against an underlying illegality in the selection procedure [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Relief – Moulding of Relief – Continuity Without Financial Benefit – Court directed Respondent No. 2 to issue order of regular appointment within four weeks – Appellant to be placed last in seniority among candidates recommended by the Selection Committee resolution dated 06.04.2013 – Relief moulded to deny financial benefits for the intervening period while granting continuity of service [Para 14].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Orders and judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Respondent No. 2 directed to issue order of regular appointment as Assistant Professor within four weeks – Appellant to be placed last in seniority among the batch recommended on 06.04.2013 – Continuity of service granted without financial benefits for the intervening period – No order as to costs [Para 15].

National Highways Act 1956 - Section 3G - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 26 - Applicability - Land Acquisition - Determination of Compensation - Held - Provisions of Sections 26 to 28 of the 2013 LA Act are applicable for determination of compensation under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act - [Paras 8-9]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 26(1)(b) - Market Value - Average Sale Price - Methodology - Arbitrator relied on a single sale deed of a residential plot in an adjoining village to value industrial land - Held - Section 26(1)(b) read with Explanations 1 and 2 requires the Collector or Arbitrator to consider multiple sale deeds to determine an average - Statutory scheme implies multiple deeds are necessary for reliable data - Reliance on a singular deal is impermissible - Dissimilar types of land cannot be used as exemplars - [Paras 10-11]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34(2A) - Patent Illegality - Arbitral Award - Setting aside - Arbitrator ignored the mandatory directives of Section 26(1)(b) of the 2013 LA Act - Held - Completely ignoring statutory mandates for valuation and adopting a single dissimilar exemplar constitutes patent illegality appearing on the face of the award - The protection under the proviso to Section 34(2A) against setting aside awards for mere erroneous application of law cannot be extended to such cases - [Para 12]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 26(1)(a) - Market Value - Ready Reckoner Rate - Alternative Valuation - Respondent cited Government Ready Reckoner rate of Rs 2,020 per square meter - Held - Since the Arbitrator's methodology under Section 26(1)(b) was flawed - the statutory provision under Section 26(1)(a) regarding market value specified for registration of sale deeds (Ready Reckoner) should have been applied - Compensation modified accordingly - [Paras 12-13]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Arbitral award and High Court judgment modified – Compensation for 1394 square meters fixed at Rs 2,020 per square meter along with consequential statutory benefits – Parties to bear their own costs.

Matrimonial Law - Cruelty and Desertion - Professional autonomy of wife - Appellant a qualified dentist established her clinic in Ahmedabad while husband was posted as an Army Officer in Kargil - Family Court held that the wife's failure to reside at the husband's place of posting and opening a clinic without informing him amounted to cruelty and desertion - Held - A well-educated and professionally qualified woman cannot be expected to be confined within rigid boundaries of matrimonial obligations alone - Marriage does not eclipse her individuality nor subjugate her identity - A woman cannot be treated as a mere appendage to the household of the husband - Pursuit of professional fulfilment and responsible parenthood for a child with medical complications are legitimate choices - Characterising such conduct as cruelty or desertion reflects an archaic and regressive mindset - Findings of cruelty and desertion expunged - [Paras 3-7, 20-27, 31]

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 195 and 340 - Perjury - Prosecution in matrimonial disputes - Husband sought prosecution of wife for alleged false statements in maintenance proceedings - Held - Allegations appear instigated by personal vendetta and spiteful approach fuelled by matrimonial acrimony - Grievances stem from a hyper-technical dissection of the material on record - No justifiable reason to direct prosecution - [Paras 35-37]

Matrimonial Law - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Divorce - Parties living separately with intense acrimony and respondent-husband remarried - Appellant-wife not hopeful of reconciliation - Held - While findings of cruelty and desertion are expunged - the decree of divorce is maintained on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage - [Paras 30-32]

Decision: Civil Appeal partly allowed – Findings of cruelty and desertion expunged – Divorce decree maintained on the ground of irretrievable breakdown – SLP(Civil) No. 28451 of 2024 dismissed.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 61 - Condonation of Delay - Refiling of Appeal - Mandatory requirement of certified copy - Respondent filed appeal on last day of condonable period without certified copy and without applying for one - Refiled after 150 days without curing the defect - Respondent applied for certified copy only months after refiling - Held - Filing an appeal without applying for a certified copy before the limitation period runs out means there was no filing in the eyes of law - A diligent litigant is expected to apply for the copy before the period expires to seek exclusion of time - The appeal was not merely defective but wholly incompetent - NCLAT order condoning delay set aside - [Paras 1-11]

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016 - Rules 14 and 22 - Presentation of Appeals - Curing of defects - Rule 22(2) mandates every appeal be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order - Rule 14 enabling exemption does not confer an automatic right to dispense with compliance - Filing an application for a certified copy is an indication of diligence in pursuing litigation - Held - Refiling an appeal without the certified copy or an exemption application is incurably tainted - NCLAT failed to ascertain if the appeal was instituted in accordance with norms before extending indulgence - [Paras 6-10]

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016 - Rule 26 - Curing of defects - Time limit for refiling - Rule 26(2) stipulates 7 days for curing defects - Respondent refiled after 150 days - Held - Even after refiling the appeal remained defective beyond redemption as the certified copy of the NCLT order sought to be impugned was not filed - [Paras 3-6]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the NCLAT set aside – Respondent's appeal rejected as incurably tainted at the threshold.

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Notional Income - Engineering Student - Determination of earning capacity - The deceased was a meritorious third-year Mechanical Engineering student with a diploma in Plastic Engineering and AutoCAD certification - Held - Notional income of an engineering student cannot be equated to minimum wages of an unskilled worker - Income assessed at 12000 per month for an accident occurring in the year 2000 - [Paras 23-26]

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Future Prospects - Notional Income - Denial by High Court - High Court refused future prospects on grounds that income was notional - Held - Approach is contrary to principles in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi - Denial of future prospects and personal/living expense deductions solely because income is notional is erroneous - 40 percent future prospects added as deceased was below 40 years - [Paras 14-15 and 27]

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Dependency and Multiplier - Calculation - Monthly income of 12000 plus 40 percent future prospects equals 16800 - One-half deducted for personal and living expenses as deceased was a bachelor - Monthly dependency at 8400 and annual dependency at 100800 - Multiplier of 18 applied as deceased was 22 years old - Total loss of dependency computed at 1814400 - [Paras 13 and 27]

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Conventional Heads - Non-pecuniary damages - Enhancement - Awarded compensation under conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance - Sum of 15000 awarded for loss of estate - 40000 for filial consortium - 30000 for funeral expenses considering transportation of the body - [Paras 28-29]

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Property Damage - Motorcycle - Assessment of loss - Tribunal and High Court applied high depreciation to a two-year-old vehicle - Held - Loss to be ascertained as per the surveyor report at 25670 instead of 18000 - [Paras 30-31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to 19,25,070 with interest at 7.5 percent per annum from the date of filing till realization – Respondents held jointly and severally liable to pay within eight weeks.

Income Tax Act 1961 - Sections 147 and 148 - Reassessment - Reason to Believe - Tangible Material - Validity of reopening - Held - Reopening of assessment is conditional on the existence of a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment based on tangible material - The Assessing Officer cannot review an assessment or reopen it on a mere change of opinion - In the present case - the original assessment orders for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 accepted the assessee's declaration at face value without any inquiry into the nature of receipts from the Association of Persons (AOP) - Discovery of the AOP Agreement and Director’s statement during a Survey under Section 133A provided fresh information revealing that the receipts were a share of gross revenue and not profit - This constitutes tangible material and not a change of opinion - Reopening held valid - [Paras 56-84, 106-114]

Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 148 - Validity of Reassessment - Reasons Recorded - Held - The validity of reopening must be tested solely on the basis of the reasons recorded at the time of issuing the notice under Section 148 - Documents not referred to in those reasons cannot be used to justify the reopening as it deprives the assessee of a fair opportunity to file objections - High Court erred in AY 2008-09 by relying on extraneous material (Assessment Orders of the AOP) not mentioned in the reasons recorded - However - since the recorded reasons independently established tangible material - the ultimate conclusion upholding the reopening is maintained - [Paras 85-87, 115-118]

Income Tax Act 1961 - Interpretation of Clauses - Question of Law - AOP Agreement - Share of Revenue vs Share of Profit - Held - Interpretation of a contractual clause which forms the foundation of the rights of parties is a question of law and not of fact - The Court is not bound by the interpretation adopted by the ITAT or High Court in parallel proceedings between the Revenue and the AOP - Literal reading of Clause 7 of the AOP Agreement - supported by the Director’s statement - confirms that the parties intended to share gross revenue - [Paras 93-96, 119-121]

Income Tax Act 1961 - Sections 86 and 67A - Taxability of share from AOP - Diversion of Income by Overriding Title - Held - Profit is the surplus remaining after all expenses are deducted from gross receipts - Under Clause 7 of the AOP Agreement - the assessee was entitled to 35% of gross sale proceeds upfront and insulated from all project expenses - which were burdened on the other member's 65% share - This receipt lacks the essential characteristics of profit and is a business receipt arising from the surrender of development rights - The 35% share was intercepted and diverted to the assessee by overriding title before it could assume the character of income in the hands of the AOP - Consequently - the amount is taxable in the hands of the assessee as business revenue and is not exempt under Section 86 - [Paras 97-105, 122-127]

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 19487 of 2017 (Revenue) is allowed – Civil Appeal No. 744 of 2013 (Revenue) is allowed – Civil Appeal No. 9107 of 2012 (Assessee) is dismissed – Notice for reopening of assessment for AY 2007-08 held valid – Income from AOP held taxable in the hands of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) and 21A - Right to Education - Medium of Instruction - Mother Tongue - Appellants sought inclusion of Rajasthani in teacher recruitment syllabus and as a medium of instruction - Held - The right to receive education in one’s mother tongue is an intrinsic facet of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) - Education must be intelligible and accessible to the learner to be meaningful - Instruction in a language unfamiliar to the child impairs foundational development and engenders alienation - [Paras 21-25 and 42-43]

Constitution of India - Article 350A - Linguistic Minorities - Obligations of the State - State of Rajasthan contended Rajasthani is not in the Eighth Schedule and speakers are not a linguistic minority - Held - The expression linguistic minority is to be understood in relation to the dominant or official language of the State - In Rajasthan where Hindi is the official language Rajasthani constitutes a minority language for Article 350A - The State has a constitutional obligation to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage - [Paras 15 and 20]

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 - Section 29(2)(f) - Curriculum and Evaluation - Medium of Instruction - Legislative intent for quality education - Held - The mandate that medium of instruction shall as far as practicable be in the child’s mother tongue is aimed at securing quality education in a substantive sense - Failure of the State to operationalise this mandate undermines statutory and policy directives - [Paras 17 and 38-39]

Administrative Law - Policy Formulation vs Constitutional Duty - State inaction regarding language recognition - Held - While the Court does not enter the arena of policy formulation it has a duty to ensure constitutional guarantees are not rendered illusory by executive inaction - The absence of Rajasthani in the Eighth Schedule is not a valid ground to deny its use for educational purposes especially when it is academically recognised at university levels - [Paras 47-51]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – State of Rajasthan directed to formulate a comprehensive policy for implementation of mother tongue-based education in Rajasthani language – State directed to take affirmative steps to introduce Rajasthani as a subject in all schools in a phased manner – Compliance affidavit to be filed by 25th September 2026.

Constitution of India - Article 145(4) - Supreme Court Rules 2013 - Order XII Rules 1 and 3 - Finality of Judgment - Dictation in Open Court versus Signed Order - Applicants sought declaration that court dictation to the Court-master was binding and the subsequent signed order was invalid - Held - The digitally signed order is the only final version of the Court's decision - Dictation to a Court-master is a rough draft or skeletal framework subject to multiple rounds of correction and refinement in chambers - Refinement of a draft prior to signing is a practical necessity due to docket explosion and does not constitute a material change requiring re-hearing - [Paras 4-9, 15, 27-29]

Practice and Procedure - Miscellaneous Applications - Maintainability - Post-disposal applications for clarification or modification - Applicants sought to rewrite the order under the garb of clarification - Held - Miscellaneous applications in disposed of matters are maintainable only for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors or in rare cases where the order is executory and impossible to implement - Registry directed not to list such applications without a specific averment on oath as required by Circular dated 03.01.2025 - Application dismissed as an abuse of process with exemplary costs - [Paras 13-19, 31]

Judicial Discretion - Power to Alter Judgment - Locus Paenitentiae - Held - A Judge has the right to change their mind and alter a draft judgment at any time until it is formally signed and delivered - Signing is not a mere formality but the act that crystallizes the decision into a full-fledged judgment - While material changes generally require re-hearing, ancillary directions like status quo or disposal of an underlying writ petition after fresh orders are passed by the State do not warrant such procedure - [Paras 10-12, 24-26, 31-32]

Decision: Miscellaneous application dismissed as not maintainable and on merits – Exemplary cost of Rs 2000 each imposed on the Applicants payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 - Regulation 10 - Common Proceedings - Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation of the word may - Held - The word may in Regulation 10 is directory and not mandatory - Construing may as shall would remove management discretion in dynamic situations where roles of charge-sheeted employees differ - Regulation 10 is a facilitative provision and does not vest any right in a delinquent officer to insist on joint or common proceedings - Failure to hold a joint enquiry does not vitiate individual disciplinary proceedings - [Paras 15-17]

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Natural Justice - Reliance on unexamined witnesses - Enquiry Officer relied on statements of co-accused recorded during preliminary investigation without examining them as witnesses in the departmental enquiry - Respondent provided no opportunity to rebut such material - Held - Findings of the Enquiry Officer were vitiated for want of evidence and violation of natural justice - Scope of judicial review allows interference when findings are based on no evidence or material errors apparent on the face of the record - High Court order setting aside the punishment affirmed on merits - [Paras 9-14]

Interpretation of Statutes - Enabling Words - May vs Shall - Construction of permissive language - Held - May is not understood as must so long as the English language retains its meaning - Enabling words are construed as compulsory only when the object is to effectuate a legal right - In the context of Regulation 10 of 1976 Regulations the provision is directory - [Paras 15-16]

Decision: Civil Appeal disposed of – High Court judgment setting aside the punishment order dated 31.05.2006 affirmed on merits – View taken by High Court regarding Regulation 10 being mandatory is set aside – Appellant directed to settle the account of the Respondent within six weeks.